USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nnnn nnnn nnnna ncnn □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DATE FILED:_10/31/2025 BEIJING CRS METALLURGICAL MACHINERY CO. LTD, : Petitioner, 25-cv-5617 (LJL) -y- ORDER ORIENT COMMERCIAL JOINT STOCK BANK, Respondent.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On July 8, 2025, Petitioner Bejing Metallurgical Machinery Co. LTD (“Petitioner”) submitted its petition to confirm an arbitration award. Dkt. No. 1. In an order dated October 7, 2025, this Court permitted Respondent Orient Commercial Joint Stock Bank (“Respondent”) to respond to the Petition, and further permitting Respondent to reply to that response. Dkt. No. 19. Respondent submitted a response, styled as a Motion to Dismiss, on October 20, with an accompanying memorandum of law. Dkt. Nos. 20-21. Petitioner submitted its reply on October 27. Dkt. No. 22. On October 30, Respondent submitted a letter motion requesting leave to file a reply to Respondents opposition to their “motion.” Dkt. No. 23. Petitioner filed its own letter opposing Respondents letter the same day, arguing that in the context of a petition to confirm an arbitration award, it would be improper to permit a further reply from Respondent. Dkt. No. 24. “Normally, confirmation of an arbitration award is ‘a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court.’” D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener,

(2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz,

(2d Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, “[a] motion to dismiss is not a procedurally proper

response to a petition to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitration award.” Berkowitz v. Gould Paper Corp.,

, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2022). The Court treats Respondent’s self-styled “motion to dismiss” as an opposition to the petition to confirm the arbitration award. Cf Sanluis Devs., L.L.C. v. CCP Sanluis, L.L.C.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“When a party moves to dismiss a motion to vacate an arbitration award, the court may, sua sponte, treat the motion to dismiss as a motion to confirm the award”). Respondent’s motion to file a “reply” is denied. The Court will, if required, request further briefing from the parties on any pertinent issues. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the motion at Dkt. No. 23, and to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 20.

SO ORDERED. wit wos Pa Dated: October 31, 2025 ee” □□□ New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge